(Fwd) Re: Clinton vs human cloning : Pres ignores self-ownersh

On: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 A S Louka wrote
[Let's not allow our dreams to make us ignorant.]
<SNIP>
[However, cloning isn't all bad - not only could we solve the food ]
[problems discussed below but imagine what cloning could do for]
[ medicine: We could "clone" human skin and organs, so patients]
[ waiting for transplants or skin grafts would not have to wait]
[for somebody to donate the exact type for them - you could pick one]
["off the shelf" just as you can monoclonal antibodies now (and that]
[was just as fantastical before their time).]
I really think that the chance of being able to use this cloning
technology to produce isolated transplantable organs without going
through a whole body embryology (and birth?) first is very small
(skin maybe excepted but there are already developing techniques for
growing sheets of 'skin'). So the moral points are extremely
important and a temporary global moratorium on human 'cloning' work
would be more than justified while people work them through.
The media is full of headline news about cloning, the world over - but I
suggest that the public _understanding_ of genetics is very limited, and
the thought of cloning a animals and humans brings about mixed feelings.
[The moral: Lets not rush and make a mess of a new science with ]
[unimaginable potential. Let us educate and be ]
[educated, then make informed, level headed decisions. Considering]
[the possible consequences, cloning is not an area for attempted ]
[heroics.]
Now that I agree with.
Michael J. Duggan,
Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research,
Porton Down,
Salisbury,
Wiltshire,
SP4 0JG,
UK
michael.duggan at camr.org.uk
Tel 01980 612733
Fax 01981 612100